Josh Marshall Admits Defeat

There’s a point that’s probably worth raising with our scofflaw Republican friends. All of their arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies: Joe Wilson’s a liar. Plame’s covert status wasn’t protected well by the CIA. It was just a short phone call. Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform. Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa. Plame sent Wilson to Africa. Rove leaked Plame’s identity in the interests of good journalism. Wilson went on too many TV shows. On and on and on.

The salient point is not that each of these claims is false. [That’s because they’re not Josh -ed] The point is that they’re irrelevant. It’s the mid-life version of ‘He hit me first!’ or ‘He called me a name!’ or other such foolery.

Did you get that boys and girls?

The facts don’t matter to Josh. They’re “irrelevant.” We’re talking about Karl Rove here so none of that matters, the bastard is guilty… of something we just don’t know what.

Josh is a smart guy. He knows (in his brain) this is is a manufactured story from the get go. He also knows that whatever legs it had got chopped out from under it when the truth came out. So now -much the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain- he asks his followers to not look at the facts of the case but instead look at the fact that we’re talking Karl Rove.

He then goes on with the “But Rove must have broken the law, they had an investigation” drivel. Josh Marshall might have thought he was making a point… All he did was surrender.

About The Author

36 Comments

Interesting that the right is being chastized for pointing out how the left are wrong on the issue. How dare we.

Also interesting is how the number of trolls on the subject across the blogosphere have disappeared from right wing blogs, and gone back into the DU caves.

The smell of desparation is in the air.

Eneils BaileyJuly 16, 2005

Heard Karl Rove’s grass has not been cut in two weeks. Congressional Investigation? Special Prosecutor? I smell prison time here. Send the Washington press corp over to his house. Flash! The Washington press corp just reported his hedges have not been trimmed also. We are establishing a pattern here. The son-of-a-bitch gotta be guilty of something. Ever play “Trivial Pursuit?”

That’s because Josh Marshall is too much a partisan to be an honest man. There are similar ultra-partisans among conservatives, but fewer, and they get less attention or respect.

Putting “my side” before the truth is a recipe for political disaster. The Democrats and their mouthpieces haven’t learned that yet. Whether they’ll learn it before their party goes the way of the Whigs is anyone’s guess.

It took a while to get the “my side before the facts” mentality out of control in the Republican Party. I was almost in tears at the semi-celebrity treatment Larry Nichols got in some circles.

JimJuly 16, 2005

Let’s call a spade a spade: Josh is a liar. Period. Let’s not coddle these Liberal-Left traitors. And let’s call a spook a spook — and by all accounts, Valeria Plame was no spook. She’s a paper-pusher at the CIA. Everyone knew she was with the CIA. Her friends, her Washington-elite circle, and anyone who bothered to read the egomanic Joe Wilson’s website. Now. Joe Wilson. He’s no spook which leads me to the question: Why would anyone with half a brain send him to investigate anything? He has no investigative credentials. He’s a backslapping Washington Liberal insider.

And now that everyone knows dear Valerie works at the CIA and she’s even posed in pics for Vanity Fair (she’s Emma Peel and Wilson is Mr. Steed?), why aren’t the MSM trying to investigate her or interview her. Why aren’t they hounding her for interviews? How come all of a sudden Libs have such profound respect for all things CIA? Wasn’t it John Kerry and Chuckie “Schmuckie” Schumer who opposed the law that they are now trying to hurt Rove with? They were against it in 1982, saying it violated the 1st Amendment to criminalize disclosure of CIA operatives. Of course they were against it. Ronald Reagan was for the law to prevent harm to REAL CIA undercovers. So Kerry and Schumer and the rest of the usual Anti-American suspects were against the law. That is before they were for the law.

Lew ClarkJuly 16, 2005

Josh also knows that the Killian memos being forgeries was irrelevant. They spoke the “truth” that’s all that matters. Karl Rove didn’t out Valerie Plame, but that doesn’t matter. He wanted to. He just got to the party too late. To the left, it doesn’t matter what Rove did or did not do. What matters is what he is. EVIL!

edJuly 16, 2005

Hmmmm.

@ Jim

“Joe Wilson. He’s no spook which leads me to the question: Why would anyone with half a brain send him to investigate anything? He has no investigative credentials. He’s a backslapping Washington Liberal insider. “

Actually Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, arranged to send him twice to Niger on investigations for the CIA. Once in 1999 and another time in 2002. In the 1999 trip he found nothing. In the 2002 trip he got one bit about Iraq inquiring about Niger’s exports, which I think are yellowcake, cattle, onions and beans. What the heck, maybe Saddam was feeling a little peckish for some chili?

JmaRJuly 16, 2005

Why do people keep referring to the fact that Plame was responsible for sending her husband on the Niger mission? She had ZERO authority to do so. That argument should be dead at this point.

JmaRJuly 16, 2005

Oh and Jim, the notion that Wilson is a “backslapping Washington liberal insider” is another fallacy concocted by the right. He was identified early on as a Republican until the actions of the Bush adminstration motivated him to change camps. Your description is wrong.

AnonymousDrivelJuly 16, 2005

RE: JmaR’s post (July 16, 2005 12:29 PM)

Why do people keep referring to the fact that Plame was responsible for sending her husband on the Niger mission? She had ZERO authority to do so. That argument should be dead at this point.

I suspect the Wilsons would like that argument to be dead at this point, too.

Why was Plame responsible? I’m not sure anyone outside the chain can know EXACTLY whose authority stretched how far. Technically, everything percolates up the chart until it reaches the CEO, or in this case, the CiC. We, of course, know this to be a ridiculous passing of the buck, baton, or blame. So whose decisions trump all else?

These are team efforts and Plame was a member of the team. Presumably, she worked on the WMD team and was possibly the quarterback running the play. Or maybe she was the coach and hubby was the quarterback being drafted. Either way she had a superior who had ultimate authority but that authority depended quite explicitely upon Plame’s analysis and recommendation – remember, she’s the expert in the field and her boss(es) rely on that input and make decisions based upon them. They cannot, nor is it their duty, to duplicate her work themselves since they are administrators tasked with the operation and not the minutiae. In such adminstrative flowcharts, the analyst, and in this case an extensively tenured one, would have carried considerable weight and her analysis would likely have sailed through the review by superior(s) barring contradictory or competing thought from other team members.

I think it would be quite reasonable to assume that her input was inherently valuable to the WMD team and, absent some contradictory information, the very impetus guiding her superior(s) to advance her work.

“the analyst, and in this case an extensively tenured one, would have carried considerable weight and her analysis would likely have sailed through the review by superior(s) barring contradictory or competing thought from other team members.” and that “I think it would be quite reasonable to assume that her input was inherently valuable to the WMD team”

…doesn’t that give the lie to the “she was a lowly desk jockey” argument that we got pummeled with when this fiasco got under way?

AnonymousDrivelJuly 16, 2005

RE: JmaR’s post (July 16, 2005 12:32 PM)

He was identified early on as a Republican until the actions of the Bush adminstration motivated him to change camps. Your description is wrong.

I think it would be safe to say that Wilson is a political opportunist with liberal tendencies based on he and his wife’s documented donations and Wilson’s statements. Reading between the lines of the interview after reading this:

Most of my close friends are Republicans. I served both Republican and Democratic presidents. In fact my first ambassadorial appointment was with a Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush. I believe in our democracy, I don’t believe that either party has a monopoly on wisdom. That said, it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Republican in the future.

He states that he served both R’s an D’s but never discloses that he was ever Republican. I suspect that he’d have stated as much because it would bolster his argument that he was not a Leftisit partisan. As I said, I’m too lazy to confirm this right now. 😉

I would say he is vacillating. Furthermore, he adds that he donated money to both the Gore and the Bush/Cheney campaigns and we already know how he stood in the ’04 election. His bipartisan donation is typical of those who want to curry favor in politics no matter who wins. Don’t forget, he is now an advisor/consultant and greasing the wheels on both sides of the tracks is wise investment strategy. You’ll notice from the donation list that his contributions coincide with the establishment of his consulting firm post State appointments… not unexpected.

I figure the “liberal insider” quip is more accurate than you might think. I’m sure if you dig for a while, you may confirm your own conclusions.

AnonymousDrivelJuly 16, 2005

RE: JmaR’s post (July 16, 2005 01:44 PM)

…maybe they’re facts but I’m guessing it’s just speculation…

…doesn’t that give the lie to the “she was a lowly desk jockey” argument that we got pummeled with when this fiasco got under way?

Of course my application to the CIA is speculation because I am not an insider of that establishment… or at least I cannot disclose such information or admit that I even exist. But that is the way any bureaucracy or organizational entity of size operates whether it be governmental or private.

As far as the “lie” to her desk-jockeyness and pencil proclivity, these are terms thrown around freely without too much restraint – unless, of course, someone knows the organizational hierarchy for certain. She could be a co-equal of many peers with no management duties. She could be a group manager who funnels some small or large number of analysts. She could be a team leader of peers with tenure giving her top-billing. I have no idea but would it matter? She is a trained analyst who was likely a pencil pusher of some pedigree and who was able to twice (2 for 2 batting average?) place her husband into the yellowcake pipeline. Common sense implies that either nepotism is desirable in the institution despite conflict-of-interest concerns or that her superiors trusted her appointments no matter how big or small her pencil. Somehow her authority managed to winnow its way through proper channels to get Wilson’s name through whether the channels were wide or narrow.

CowmixJuly 16, 2005

I seriously don’t get this whole “he / she a partisan” line always floated by today’s GOP.. You can can be a life long GOP activist… kill ten democrats with your bare hands.. and as soon as you publicly disagree with the GOP party line, you are a left-wing partisan. In GOP land, you are only as loyal as your last public statement.

JmaRJuly 16, 2005

Drivel,

Allow me to propose a short list of dots regarding Rove/Plame/Wislon, connect them if you have a minute and give me your conclusion(s):

Bush 41 called Joe Wilson “truly inspiring” and “courageous” for his work in Iraq prior to the first Gulf War. I think GHWB should be asked his opinion on what kind of man Joseph Wilson is.

Karl Rove was fired from Bush 41’s campaign in 92’for Bob Novak (that right there should be lights out in my opinion).

Karl Rove was fingered by his fellow Republican operatives as a smear merchant and his trademark is destruction of opponent and opponents family so as to make the reward of continuing to stay in the race not worth the risk. There are a number of very good pieces of journalism on Rove and I don’t think any of them have been disputed by Rove or the WH. Ask John McCain and Max Cleland what the man is capable of.

EVERY single insider that left the Bush inner circle and said “whoa, wait a minute, there’s some really fvcked up stuff going on here” had their character assasinated by the propaganda machine. So are we to believe that every one of them (Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, General Shinseki et al.) served their country for decades with honor and distinction and suddenly, when this adminstration came to power, they all lost their minds and turned into liberal paintywaist partisan hacks?

It just doesn’t add up fellas.

JmaRJuly 16, 2005

typo, should be “for leaking to Bob Novak”

JmaRJuly 16, 2005

I think the fact that Rove was fired from poppy Bush’s campaign in 92 for leaking to none other than Bob Novak is incredibly germaine to this entire discussion and it’s also no secret. The fact that you will hear NO MENTION OF IT AT ALL in ther msm is just further confirmation that the claim that the msm is liberally biased is a flipping joke. Seriously, how can you deny that? Isn’t that fact relevant? If the shoe was on Bill or Hillary or Kennedy’s foot we’d hear about it non-stop for weeks. Meanwhile, we get all this smoke and BS about a Democratic witch hunt and political opportunism. So you tell me who controls the media message.

JmaRJuly 16, 2005

Here is the report:

Rove fired from Bush Sr’s ’92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak’s piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because “the president’s re-election effort in Texas has been a bust.” Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak’s source.

Rove was the “only one with a motive to leak”: Mosbacher says: “I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go.” The motive in question? Mosbacher had given Rove only a quarter of the $1 million spent on direct mail contracts for the 92 campaign; Rove, who in 1988 had the entire direct mail contract, therefore had an axe to grind with Mosbacher. Novak’s column stated: “Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher.”

Mosbacher still says Rove did it: Although Novak and Rove continue to deny Rove was the source of the leak, Mosbacher recently stated “I still believe he did it.”

AnonymousDrivelJuly 16, 2005

RE: JmaR’s post (July 16, 2005 04:18 PM)

Bush 41 called Joe Wilson “truly inspiring” and “courageous” for his work in Iraq prior to the first Gulf War. I think GHWB should be asked his opinion on what kind of man Joseph Wilson is.

I would be very curious to know what Bush Sr. thinks of Joe Wilson now too given recent developments. I don’t know what Bush Sr. really thought about Wilson at the time when he made those statements. I’ll borrow a joke from D. Miller who commented on members of Congress by saying that in Washington, the compliment in the chamber wells of “my esteemed colleague” translates to “this prick over here”. Bush could have been sincere or he could have just been playing politics. I’m sure that Bush felt inspired after Gulf War I and thought it would be tasteless to denigrate Wilson’s work even if he didn’t approve of it. Cursory self-congratulation by Wilson’s book promoters may or may not be true despite any factual evidence that Bush did indeed make those quotes. Wilson may have done terrific work at the time, but I am in no position to make a judgement on his performance then. Others have commented on Wilson’s relegation to lesser posts after Gulf War I so I’m not sure any transient accolades lasted for very long in the continuing Bush administration. Wilson may very well have been getting handed his hat while Bush Sr. patted his back for “a job well done”.

Karl Rove was fired from Bush 41’s campaign in 92′ for leaking to Bob Novak…

If he did indeed leak, then he should not have. Seeing as Bush Sr. was ex-CIA, he may have been particularly sensitive on the matter. What were the particulars of the leak (any good links?).

Karl Rove was fingered by his fellow Republican operatives as a smear merchant and his trademark is destruction of opponent and opponents family so as to make the reward of continuing to stay in the race not worth the risk. There are a number of very good pieces of journalism on Rove and I don’t think any of them have been disputed by Rove or the WH. Ask John McCain and Max Cleland what the man is capable of.

Politics. Every candidate has lots of advisors whose task it is to establish plans to diminish their opponents. It’s been happening since the advent of democracy. To say that Rove is particularly nefarious sounds like partisan gobbledeygook to me. He must really be in the heads of the Democratic leadership, I swear.

EVERY single insider that left the Bush inner circle and said “whoa, wait a minute, there’s some really fvcked up stuff going on here” had their character assasinated by the propaganda machine. So are we to believe that every one of them (Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, General Shinseki et al.) served their country for decades with honor and distinction and suddenly, when this adminstration came to power, they all lost their minds and turned into liberal paintywaist partisan hacks?

Reapply my previous comment here, then add that some of those whose characters had been “assassinated” seemed to have their own axes to grind. They appeared to have disagreements with the administration and they were phased out. It happens all of the time in and out of politics. The President has discretion via his Cabinet to appoint and reassign or remove those who no longer fit the President’s agenda. It’s his/her perogative. Now, once booted, those who lost their positions wanted their own pound of flesh and so they went public with their “revelations”. They may or may have not been valid but I am not giving them a free pass just because they were antagonists. It is very possible that they were expunged for quite valid reasons. I never worked for them, they never worked for me, so I am in no position to evaluate their performance or patriotism. I can read publicly available reports and recollect my life experiences and their context during an individual’s tenure, but that is the best data I have to formulate an opinion. Lots of potential grey here.

AnonymousDrivelJuly 16, 2005

RE: JmaR’s post (July 16, 2005 04:36 PM)

Here is the report:

…Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story… Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak’s source.

…Mosbacher still says Rove did it: Although Novak and Rove continue to deny Rove was the source of the leak, Mosbacher recently stated “I still believe he did it.”

Thanks for the update.

This all sounds like internal feuding for politicos looking to advance. An alleged and still unproven charge does not have the gravity one might think. That Rove was removed may have been for political expediency of some sort whether this event was related to that action or not. An unproven belief holds little weight with me though it may be true. I won’t judge on gossip.

Fred ZJuly 16, 2005

Leftoids loathe Rove for being smart, tough and decisive. When he finds an idiot or yet another Democrat mole he chops them. Tough.

We on the right have become well aware of the Leftoid strategy of placing moles in our ranks. We know those moles are not just to spy, but are also to pretend to be one of us to discredit us by various dishonesties.

Wilson is an example of such a mole. Too bad for the leftoids he is a lying fool, completely exposed.

Just MeJuly 16, 2005

Notice how the dem talking points on Rove keep evolving?

We have pretty much hit the bottom of the barrel, which is the real reason they want him gone-Rove is effective, and they don’t have him on their side, so they hate him and want him gone.

They think the answer to their problems is getting rid of Rove and not in changing their message.

JmaRJuly 16, 2005

OK, I’m hear to make a serious and honest request. Without politics, venom or sarcasm and as someone who truly loves this country and wants his two kids to enjoy the same priveledges and benefits that the Unites States and its shapers have handed down to all of us, hear me out because I’m going out on a limb here.

I think that we are headed for an iceberg. Despite the petty bickering that gets done here and on other blogs, on the talking head TV shows and on radio between the left and the right, R’s and D’s, and regardless of who is responsible for getting us to this point, we have in fact reached a very dangerous point in the history of this great country. Put all of the other issues aside. We are getting dangerously close to the end of the Age of Oil, and if we don’t recognize this and come together to find a solution NOW, the days ahead will be very dark. I would gladly support ANY candidate, any party, that would make it their sincere goal to get us off of fossil fuels. It’s incredibly efficient and will be nearly impossible to replace but when humans are tasked with solving practical problems, nothing suits them better. If we start to get serious about this and we dedicate the appropriate resources to finding a solution we may still have time to avert a catastrophe. Unfortunately, it may be too late to avoid very serious repercussions.

Yes I’m left-leaning, yes I think Iraq was a huge mistake, yes I think the Republicans have been awful, but the Democrats have been worse…they’ve been spineless. If we can’t come together and address the oil issue, all of the other politics will seem insignificant in very short order.

If you refuse to listen to what anybody else in the opposite camp has to say, at least give this one some serious concern. If we are to survive as a country, all of us need to be on board to address this.

Thanks,
Sincerely,
Jason

bullwinkleJuly 16, 2005

Yeah right, your problem is with fossil fuels so you attack Bush, Rove, and republicans in general. I guess that’s because the democrats have taken such great strides to get us off fossil fuels by blocking every attempt to build nuclear power plants for 30 years that nobody even wants to try. They’ve also blocked every attempt at drilling for fossil fuels on US soil to make sure we were more dependent on oil from the middle east. Good thinking, just keep on supporting the left and all your dreams will come true. As long as your dreams are nightmares. I’m going to go out on a limb here, but you aren’t exactly turing down offers from any think tanks, are you?

AnonymousDrivelJuly 16, 2005

RE: JmaR’s postt (July 16, 2005 09:52 PM)

Wow, this thread has taken a hard left turn! 😉

I’m not so sure the Democrats have turned spineless as much as a majority recognizes what snakes they’ve been. Oops, sorry. Too easy.

However, I happen to agree with the need to diminsh greatly our dependence on oil… and not because of global warming. Clearly it is quite wasteful to be consuming a non-renewable resource that is so valuable in so many different applications where its burning is not necessary. Further, its acquisition does mandate our continued interventions around the globe with concomitant blowback. Finally, it’s an expensive resource whose total costs are hidden – huge military assets are committed to defending its availability and industrial assets committed to scouring its environmental residues.

Government has been derelict for decades in addressing this concern… a consequence of entrenched industry with highly endowed lobbyists. Democrats have been just as guilty as Republicans in not advancing true energy reform; but GWBush has started something. But you have to admit, the liberals have been irresponsible in one important regard. While clamoring for the minimized use of fossil fuels, they fail to support the alternatives appropriately. Use fission? To dangerous and too much risk of radiation leaking from the sand pits. Use wind? Apply NIMBY. Hydroelectric? But where will the tadpoles go in the eradicated ecosystem? I could go on but you see my point. Consequently, everyone returns to the old standby because of its political expedience.

At any rate, I’ll agree with you on this point that something needs to be done and it should be on the scale of the Manhattan Project.

Meanwhile, LOOK! A flying pig.

JmaRJuly 17, 2005

bullwinkle, I tried to keep partisanship out of that post, you know, rise above it and behave like a grown up for the sake of something bigger than politics. I’m sorry you can’t do that.

AD, neither party has been honest about this problem and they each have similar reasons, but I truly believe that the so-called neo-cons are in fact not only well aware of the issue but they have decided to do something about it. Of course therein lies my problem with this adminstration. I do know that it’s in the interest of Big Oil (and Detroit for obvious reasons) to keep a lid on the immediacy and the severity of this problem. There are great resources where you can read up on what serious scientists and geologists are saying/doing to prepare, but this is at the root of almost all of our current geopolitical problems. If you have any interest let me know and I’ll drop the link.

I know this article is on a “liberal” website, but if you have a few minutes give it a read, it was the first one that really sounded the alarm for me:

JmaR: You are misinformed. We are nowhere near the end of the age of oil. I comment from outside the USA; from Alberta Canada. Our oilsands have enough to supply you for a long, long time.

It never was an age of oil. It was, and is, an age of energy use. Oil, coal, gas, nuclear, hydro.

It has been the left that has stopped real development of real energy sources in favour of bad jokes like wind power, solar energy and ‘Global Warming’, ‘Nuclear Winter’, ‘Ozone Holes’ or some other passing fad. The left has even stopped the infill development of existing ones. No new oil refineries in the USA for what? 20 years? More? Why?

First the left creates massive problems and then cries over them. First the left destroys wealth by raising the cost energy and then exclaims over the poverty.

So long as I’m ranting, please keep your draft dodgers, Robert Kennedy Jr., Rosie O’ Donnel, Democrats disgruntled about the Bush election and general Moonbats in the USA. It’s already too left here. We used to be 10% richer than you and are now 18% more poor. And state health care is crapola. The left has pretty severely damaged my country and we do not need more American leftoids.

Fred Z
Bananada

bullwinkleJuly 17, 2005

Typical liberal JmaR wants to call a truce on political statements and venom so he speak his mind after constantly hammering republicans with false accusations then even goes on to tell us all how he thinks the republicans are awful. I give that honesty and openess two fingers up, can you guess which two? More proof lefties are mentally deficient and totally incapable of honesty in any way, shape or form.

JmaRJuly 17, 2005

Fred,

Well you are partially correct, there are in fact massive kerogen deposits in Canada. The problem though is that at this point it’s a dollar-in dollar-out propostion because the process of converting it to any useful form is inefficient at this point. Don’t take it from me though, take it from an expert:

“It has been the left that has stopped real development of real energy sources in favour of bad jokes like wind power, solar energy …”

I must admit that I’m frankly amused by the various antics by lefties. The fact that quite a few lefties are now embracing nuclear power (!!!) is an astonishing about face. The fact that wind turbines have now been found to kill thousands of birds each year, including many endangered ones, in just one location is both appalling and indicative of leftie consequences. The additional fact that lefties fought tooth and nail to prevent wind turbines being placed off the shore of Martha’s Vineyard, a fave leftie hangout, because it would destroy the view. Yeah that’s the ticket! GO Alternative Power! Unless it spoils the view for a bunch of lefties.

It’s amazing and appalling. Disturbing and disgusting. It’s two for one!

edJuly 17, 2005

Hmmmm.

“Clearly it is quite wasteful to be consuming a non-renewable resource that is so valuable in so many different applications where its burning is not necessary.”

Actually there is some debate about that. I think everyone agrees about the process of how oil is created, but there is some disagreement starting on the source of oil itself.

The most widely accepted theory is that oil is created from the remains of plants and animals from millions of years ago which have been put into conditions where great heat and pressure have reduced them into oil. Remember that this is the most widely accepted theory, not that it’s absolutely true.

Another theory starting to make the rounds is that oil is a naturally occuring substance created by the Earth’s crust. This oil is formed by great heat and pressure, but the source is not the remains of ancient animals and plants, but the raw elements of oil itself. After all crude oil is little more than molecular chains of hydrogen and carbon, with other small concentrations of elements and compounds that generally have to be removed during the refining process.

So, technically, if you place hydrogen and carbon into a situation where great heat and pressure is applied, then you get oil. This is generally how synthetic oil is produced. So why does process require carcasses of ancient animals and plants? So what, potentially, are other sources for carbon and hydrogen? Perhaps the floor of the oceans, as plate tectonics subsumes portions of the ocean floor under the continents.

But evidently, after several years, some oil wells that had been thought to be played out had oil in them again. *shrug* it’s probably a very complex process that we don’t know very well yet. It would be interesting to see if the creation of oil is on ongoing process that doesn’t involve dead creatures from millions of years ago. It would be even more interesting if it were possible to shove garbage into extremely deep wells, cap them and then see if oil results.

*shrug* it’s all theory though.

JmaRJuly 17, 2005

Matthew Simmons is one of the key players here. Google him if you haven’t heard of him, he is an adviser to the Bush adminstration and he’s trying like hell to get the “peak oil” issue on the table before it’s too late to avoid disaster (and as I said, we may already be there, depends on your perspective). This very brief article points to some of the issues that people are thinking about in preparation for the end of cheap oil:

Another theory starting to make the rounds is that oil is a naturally occuring substance created by the Earth’s crust. This oil is formed by great heat and pressure, but the source is not the remains of ancient animals and plants, but the raw elements of oil itself. After all crude oil is little more than molecular chains of hydrogen and carbon, with other small concentrations of elements and compounds that generally have to be removed during the refining process.

So, technically, if you place hydrogen and carbon into a situation where great heat and pressure is applied, then you get oil. This is generally how synthetic oil is produced.

I admit that this is not a theory I’ve heard before. I guess my first and most obvious challenge to the theory is what is the source of the carbon in the crust? Getting H2 should not be a problem but C certainly would be. C is the definition of organic and the Earth’s core is inorganic. Some post-life entity had to donate its C to the process or that theory won’t hold. I guess I’m still holding on to the archaic theories of ancient plants and animals contributing their C to the process.

As far as producing synthetics as a substitute, one would need to apply principles of thermodynamics. Sure, one could produce a complex set of hydrocarbons from its precursors, but at what cost? If it takes more kinetic energy to produce a different form of potential energy, is that a thermodynamic you want to pursue? You end up spending more energy to create the final product than you get from its subsequent “decomposition” since you must invest energy to manufacture a more complex molecule. On a small scale such as synthetic oil, that might be a reasonable tradeoff since it is a specific application used to make a machine run more efficiently and, hopefully, more economically over the lifespan of the machine utilizing it. The net balance of energy spent to energy “gained” (by not spending quite as much as you would have) would be a worthy pursuit.

Creating an oil from hydrocarbon precursors would be a terribly inefficient proposition, however. But I am not a biochemical engineer. Maybe a process could be developed (similar to synthetic diamonds) that is not quite as costly should it use the natural properties of the Earth’s innate heat/pressure to make the equation favorable for humans. Note however that physical law still applies and it is a losing proposition, energetically, to do this. But why not tap the core’s kinetic/potential energy in the form of heat and pressure if we are ever able to invent such a process? I don’t see that happening in my lifetime though and I feel a bit guilty passing on the obligation to future generations when we have perfectly reasonable alternatives now to prolong such a need (or act of desperation?).

I’m still in the renewable energy camp and would prefer to work towards fusion (not the cold-fusion fraud kind) while tapping solar now. Seems a shame to have this giant fusion reactor floating out there sending energy by the truckload (and big trucks at that) and we fail to utilize it. Maybe its plant envy. I think my mitochondria are starting to complain so I better cut this short.

Sure JmaR. Post whatever link you prefer. I admit that going to that (eew, ick) site will require a thorough disinfection of my keyboard, monitor, and network card, but I’m always open to scientific data. I have my doubts that commondreams will provide it but it can’t hurt to review all sources. I’ve been aware of a good bit of energy and conservation material for quite some time (since elementary school and throughout my formal education) so I am receptive to real analysis. However, if I start perceiving some whacked-out pseudo-science concealing an agenda, than I’ll discount the entire volume. I know, baby-out-with-bathwater thinking – but who has time to waste with demagogues?

“In the real world there’s only one scandal in this whole wretched business — that the CIA, as part of its institutional obstruction of the administration, set up a pathetic ”fact-finding mission” that would be considered a joke by any serious intelligence agency and compounded it by sending, at the behest of his wife, a shrill politically motivated poseur who, for the sake of 15 minutes’ celebrity on the cable gabfest circuit, misled the nation about what he found.’

CowmixJuly 18, 2005

Mark Steyn lives in an alternate universe in which David Kay is still the head of the ISG and is just finishing cataloging the 1000s of tons of WMDs his group found.

Up is down.. black is white.. etc..

> I second what Mark Steyn said;
>
> “In the real world there’s only one scandal in
> this whole wretched business — that the CIA, as
> part of its institutional obstruction of the
> administration, set up a pathetic ”fact-finding
> mission” that would be considered a joke by any
> serious intelligence agency and compounded it by
> sending, at the behest of his wife, a shrill
> politically motivated poseur who, for the sake
> of 15 minutes’ celebrity on the cable gabfest
> circuit, misled the nation about what he found.’

AnonymousDrivelJuly 18, 2005

RE: Fred Z’s post (July 17, 2005 12:36 AM)

So long as I’m ranting, please keep your draft dodgers, Robert Kennedy Jr., Rosie O’ Donnel, Democrats disgruntled about the Bush election and general Moonbats in the USA. It’s already too left here… and we do not need more American leftoids.

I missed this earlier.

How about we wall off some enclave in Quebec? We’ll supply the brick if you’ll supply the mortar. They won’t need any fuel-oil for all of the hot air. Heck, Al Franken produces enough kilowatts to power a small village and …wait a minute! Hey ed, eureka! I think I found a new source of heat! Any new technology available to cap it and clean it for domestic use? Or is it still just too toxic?